In the 1990s, when the Italian era of privatisations began, a trend, which could be named as an “escape” from the public organisation, was established. In the face of this trend another one has been established, namely the one to the gradual extension of the “public body” concept – to which could be re-conducted different private bodies – an extension that was initially established above all due to the transposition of European directives on public procurement, which had introduced the definition of body governed by public law. The extension referred to has led to case-law broadening the concept of administrative act and, consequently, to extend the scrutiny of the administrative judge. Later, those notions were re-defined by interventions of legislator. Since that time, in our legal system, an extended concept of public authority has been established, whose general legal coordinates can be identified in article 1, par. 1-ter of the law no. 241/1990 and article 7, par. 2 of the code of administrative process. Consequently, the extended concept of public authority does not coincide with the one of public administration, on the grounds that it cannot establish a necessary correspondence between the ownership and/or the exercise of administrative functions and the existence of a public organization. A private-law company, a foundation that has been established by a public administration or companies with publicly-owned shareholdings must not be counted among the public organisations, with the consequence that the legal status, which is exactly the one of public organisations, is not applicable to them. The fact that the mentioned legal regime is not applicable to those organisations, wherever it has awarded them the exercise of administrative functions, has to be considered as a sign of loss of central role of the public organisations. The topic of the replacement of a public organisation with a private organisation in the exercise of administrative discretional powers, on one hand raises the question of what the conditions are that make the first one equated to the latter, on the other hand draws our attention to the conditions that make the establishment of an administrative apparatus for the exercise of administrative functions unnecessary. In the absence of explicit and implicit limits to the possibility of awarding private parties administrative and discretional powers, the essential safeguards of the citizens, which are exclusively related to the legal regime of the awarded power, prevent them from being weakened. The obligation to maintain the same level of the citizens safeguards may in particular be inferred by article 1, par. 1-ter of law no. 241/90 and article 7, par. 2 of the code of administrative process. In cases in which administrative discretional powers have been awarded to a private organisation - on the basis of an act of awarding – the same organisation must comply with directives issued by political bodies in order to ensure the required democratic legitimacy in the exercise of those powers by that organisation, not only initially (id est: when the function has to be awarded), but also at a later time. Such compliance identifies a further condition, that is essential to the scope of ensuring an effective juridical equivalence between an administrative apparatus and a private organisation in the exercise of administrative discretional powers. A phenomenon other than the one of the awarding of administrative functions to private organisations, is represented by the partial conformation – external-enforced – of the organisational framework of private organisations for purposes of general interest. According to law decree no. 21/2012, converted into law no. 56/2012, the Government, wherever a threat of serious injury to the essential interests of the defence and national security is detected, may exercise golden powers, by imposing specific provisions or conditions (see article 1, par. 1, lett. a). In an important case where golden powers were exercised, the Government enforced the company TIM and the companies controlled by the latter, to modify its governance and set up an internal organisational structure for the safety, with special autonomy, which must carry out some activities under private law regime, independently. This has led to the implementation of an unprecedented collaboration between the State and private-law companies, targeted of specific provisions or conditions - operating in certain sectors considered strategically important by law – for the fulfilment of essential public interests.

A partire dalla stagione delle privatizzazioni degli anni ‘90 in Italia, si è andata affermando una tendenza, che può essere denominata come “fuga” dalla organizzazione pubblica. A fronte di detta tendenza se n’è affermata un’altra, vale a dire quella alla graduale esten-sione della nozione di “soggetto pubblico” – alla quale possono ricondursi diversi enti privati – estensione che inizialmente si è avuta soprattutto in ragione del recepimento delle direttive eu-ropee in materia di appalti pubblici, che avevano introdotto la definizione di organismo di diritto pubblico. La menzionata estensione ha poi portato la giurisprudenza ad ampliare la nozione di atto amministrativo e, conseguentemente, ad estendere il sindacato giurisdizionale del giudice am-ministrativo. Successivamente, dette nozioni sono state ridefinte da interventi del legislatore. Da quel momento, nel nostro ordinamento giuridico, si è affermato un concetto allargato di autorità pubblica, le cui coordinate normative generali sono individuabili nell’art. 1, comma 1-ter, l. n. 241/1990 e nell’art. 7, comma 2 c.p.a. Pertanto, la nozione allargata di autorità pubblica non coincide con quella di pubblica amministrazione, in ragione del fatto che non può stabilirsi una necessaria corrispondenza tra la titolarità e/o l’esercizio di funzioni amministrative e l’esistenza di un’organizzazione pubblica. Una società di diritto privato, una fondazione costituita da una p.a. o società a partecipa-zione pubblica non sono infatti annoverabili tra le organizzazioni pubbliche, con la conseguenza che ad esse non risulta applicabile lo statuto giuridico proprio delle organizzazioni pubbliche. Il fatto che non trovi applicazione detto regime a tali organizzazioni, laddove alle stesse sia conferito l’esercizio di attività amministrative, deve considerarsi un indice della perdita di centralità delle organizzazioni pubbliche. Il tema della sostituzione di un’organizzazione pubblica con un’organizzazione privata nell’esercizio di poteri amministrativi discrezionali, da un lato pone la questione di quali siano le condizioni che rendono la prima equiparabile alla seconda, dall’altro ci induce a riflettere sulle condizioni che rendono non necessaria la creazione di un apparato amministrativo per l’esercizio di funzioni amministrative. In mancanza di limiti espliciti o impliciti alla possibilità di conferire a soggetti privati l’esercizio di poteri amministrativi anche discrezionali, le garanzie essenziali dei cittadini, che risultano connesse esclusivamente al regime giuridico del potere conferito, impediscono che si determini un affievolimento delle stesse. L’obbligo di mantenere inalterato il livello delle garanzie dei cittadini risulta in particolare desumibile dall’art. 1, comma 1-ter l. n. 241/90 e dall’art. 7, comma 2, c.p.a. Nei casi in cui ad un’organizzazione privata siano stati conferiti poteri amministrativi discrezionali – sulla base di un atto di conferimento – la stessa deve conformarsi alle direttive impartite dagli organi politici, al fine di assicurare, non soltanto nel momento iniziale (id est quando la funzione viene conferita) ma anche successivamente, la necessaria legittimazione democratica nell’esercizio di tali poteri da parte di tale organizzazione. Detta conformità individua dunque un’ulteriore condizione, che risulta essenziale al fine di assicurare un’effettiva equiparazione giuridica tra un apparato amministrativo e un’organizzazione privata nell’esercizio di poteri amministrativi discrezionali. Un fenomeno diverso da quello del conferimento a organizzazioni private di funzioni amministrative è costituito dalla parziale conformazione – eteroimposta – della struttura di organizzazioni private a fini di interesse generale. In base al d.l. n. 21/2012, conv. con mod. dalla l. n. 56/2012, il Governo, là dove ravvisi una situazione di minaccia di grave pregiudizio per gli interessi essenziali della difesa e della sicurezza nazionale, può esercitare golden power, imponendo specifiche condizioni e prescrizioni (si v. l’art. 1, comma 1, lett. a). In un importante caso di esercizio di golden power, il Governo ha imposto a TIM Spa e alle società dalla stessa controllate, di modificare in parte la sua governance e di creare una struttura organizzativa interna per la sicurezza, dotata di particolare autonomia, che deve svolgere, in modo indipendente, determinate attività a regime privatistico. Ciò ha condotto alla realizzazione di un’inedita collaborazione tra lo Stato e gli enti socie-tari privati, destinatari delle particolari prescrizioni e condizioni – operanti in certi settori considerati dalla legge di rilevanza strategica – nella cura di fondamentali interessi pubblici.

Condizioni che consentono di ‘equiparare’ un’organizzazione privata ad una organizzazione pubblica nell’esercizio di funzioni amministrative e condizioni etero-imposte da cui conseguono effetti conformativi dell’organizzazione di enti privati per la salvaguardia di interessi pubblici ‘essenziali’ [Conditions enabling a private organization to be equated with a public one in the exercise of administrative powers and externally-enforced conditions that affect the organization of private entities safeguarding essential public interests]

Maltoni Andrea
2020

Abstract

In the 1990s, when the Italian era of privatisations began, a trend, which could be named as an “escape” from the public organisation, was established. In the face of this trend another one has been established, namely the one to the gradual extension of the “public body” concept – to which could be re-conducted different private bodies – an extension that was initially established above all due to the transposition of European directives on public procurement, which had introduced the definition of body governed by public law. The extension referred to has led to case-law broadening the concept of administrative act and, consequently, to extend the scrutiny of the administrative judge. Later, those notions were re-defined by interventions of legislator. Since that time, in our legal system, an extended concept of public authority has been established, whose general legal coordinates can be identified in article 1, par. 1-ter of the law no. 241/1990 and article 7, par. 2 of the code of administrative process. Consequently, the extended concept of public authority does not coincide with the one of public administration, on the grounds that it cannot establish a necessary correspondence between the ownership and/or the exercise of administrative functions and the existence of a public organization. A private-law company, a foundation that has been established by a public administration or companies with publicly-owned shareholdings must not be counted among the public organisations, with the consequence that the legal status, which is exactly the one of public organisations, is not applicable to them. The fact that the mentioned legal regime is not applicable to those organisations, wherever it has awarded them the exercise of administrative functions, has to be considered as a sign of loss of central role of the public organisations. The topic of the replacement of a public organisation with a private organisation in the exercise of administrative discretional powers, on one hand raises the question of what the conditions are that make the first one equated to the latter, on the other hand draws our attention to the conditions that make the establishment of an administrative apparatus for the exercise of administrative functions unnecessary. In the absence of explicit and implicit limits to the possibility of awarding private parties administrative and discretional powers, the essential safeguards of the citizens, which are exclusively related to the legal regime of the awarded power, prevent them from being weakened. The obligation to maintain the same level of the citizens safeguards may in particular be inferred by article 1, par. 1-ter of law no. 241/90 and article 7, par. 2 of the code of administrative process. In cases in which administrative discretional powers have been awarded to a private organisation - on the basis of an act of awarding – the same organisation must comply with directives issued by political bodies in order to ensure the required democratic legitimacy in the exercise of those powers by that organisation, not only initially (id est: when the function has to be awarded), but also at a later time. Such compliance identifies a further condition, that is essential to the scope of ensuring an effective juridical equivalence between an administrative apparatus and a private organisation in the exercise of administrative discretional powers. A phenomenon other than the one of the awarding of administrative functions to private organisations, is represented by the partial conformation – external-enforced – of the organisational framework of private organisations for purposes of general interest. According to law decree no. 21/2012, converted into law no. 56/2012, the Government, wherever a threat of serious injury to the essential interests of the defence and national security is detected, may exercise golden powers, by imposing specific provisions or conditions (see article 1, par. 1, lett. a). In an important case where golden powers were exercised, the Government enforced the company TIM and the companies controlled by the latter, to modify its governance and set up an internal organisational structure for the safety, with special autonomy, which must carry out some activities under private law regime, independently. This has led to the implementation of an unprecedented collaboration between the State and private-law companies, targeted of specific provisions or conditions - operating in certain sectors considered strategically important by law – for the fulfilment of essential public interests.
2020
Maltoni, Andrea
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
A-Maltoni-Condizioni che consentono di ‘equiparare’ un’organizzazione privata ad una organizzazione pubblica-2020.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 314.98 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
314.98 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2438220
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact